Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Breivik: “According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “Norway Killer Cultural Christian, Practical Darwinian” (July 24, 2011), we learn from Creation-Evolution Headlines a bit of the background to World News Daily’s bringing the Darwinian leanings of the Norway killer to light:

WND first started challenging the depictions of Breivik as a Christian on the 23rd. Then on the 24th, WND posted the entire Breivik manifesto and described him as a Darwinian, not a ‘Christian’ in the usual sense of someone who believes in Jesus Christ the Son of God and submits to Him as Lord and Savior.

For example,

Support for Darwinian ideas can be seen in several places in his manifesto:

While arguing against the feminist destruction of marriage, he said, approvingly, “Marriage is not a ‘conspiracy to oppress women’, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.”

Here’s Uncommon Descent’s story on Breivik and other Darwin-motivated gunmen.

Comments
Bornagain,
Doveton, Dr. Abel, has a million dollar prize backing up his falsification claim,,, whereas you have,,,, well you have your hunches,,,
Just a note, but a million dollar prize claim doesn't back up anything. It is a claim of a prize, nothing more and adds no credibility to Dr. Abel's claims. I'll also note that I can't think of one prominent scientific advance that was ever put forth via a prize claim. The vast majority of scientists demonstrate the validity of their claims through research instead. "How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things?" — Albert Einstein Yep...he also noted: "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."Doveton
August 1, 2011
August
08
Aug
1
01
2011
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Doveton, Dr. Abel, has a million dollar prize backing up his falsification claim,,, whereas you have,,,, well you have your hunches,,, http://lifeorigin.info/ How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? Is human reason, then, without experience, merely by taking thought, able to fathom the properties of real things? — Albert Einsteinbornagain77
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Bornagain,
Doveton, I note once again you, as a atheist, are completely missing the point that you have no basis in science from which to work; To get this whole ‘transcendent thing’ down, you know transcendent things like perception, reasoning, truth, information, consciousness, etc.. etc…,,, things that are essential for ‘science’ to even be possible,
Well, my research into such things indicates they are not transcendent; they are material process phenomena just like rain, lava flow, and sunburn. But that's neither here nor there I suppose since that's an post hoc acceptance. The real point to understand is that the validity of science doesn't come from some "world view" based on science, at least not for me. My world view can be summed up in "I'm hungry". Everything - perception, reasoning, truth, information, consciousness, love, etc...all of those items and the awareness of them follows from "I'm hungry". Once one comes to terms with "I'm hungry" and "I'm not hungry", science merely becomes away to make the transition between the two efficient and effective.
Let’s break it down to its foundational brass tax. I hold that material processes cannot generate transcendent things. whereas, You, as a atheist, if you are consistent, hold that material processes can generate such transcendent things, or at least the illusion of such transcendent things.
Since I'm not aware of any transcendent things, I don't find the idea of anything generating such things very useful.
Thus, to resolve this conflict, I have a null hypothesis for you to falsify to prove to me that material processes can do such as you hold: The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency – Dr David L. Abel – November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_L.....iency.html The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel – Null Hypothesis For Information Generation – 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: “Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.” A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8 ) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag Falsify that Doveton and I will gladly pay attention to your conjectures!! Deal???
Simply put, it strikes me that Dr. Abel is just begging the question. For example, all Dr. Abel is saying here:
physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration.
Is 'non-organizing dynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems...' That's not a very compelling null hypothesis as it offers nothing of any validity against any current research. If Dr. Abel truly wishes to "focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,”", he would be better served by actually testing current research and pointing out specific issues in the outcome of specific methodology. But that's up to him.Doveton
July 31, 2011
July
07
Jul
31
31
2011
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
vjtorley: I certainly don't doubt that an atheist would have far fewer scruples about arranging the time, place and manner of their own death than theists. Nor would I be very surprised if those who haven't thought much about whether they are atheists or otherwise have a gloomier view of life than those who have, and the latter probably get labelled as atheists in the respective surveys. Christianity, and other religions can be hugely life-affirming. So can atheism, when positively asserted. As for your statistics, I am as suspicious of them as I am of statistics showing that religion is associated with lower IQ. That kind of nation-as-unit-of-analysis inference is riddled with the Ecological Fallacy. It's one of the fallacies I battled with when trying to refute the case that alleged exit poll fraud was higher in Republican precincts.Elizabeth Liddle
July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
Here you go Doveton, the mandatory song: Creed - Bullets (Video 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPzhUp8mWgsbornagain77
July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Hi Elizabeth, Here are a couple of articles that might interest you on religion and suicide. Religious Affiliation, Atheism and Suicide . This is an article showing not only that membership in a highly religious culture is linked to lower levels of suicide, but also that higher levels of participation within a specific religious group are linked to lower levels of suicide. A Global Perspective in the Epidemiology of Suicide by Jose Manoel Bertolote and Alexandra Fleischmann. According to this article, suicide rates are lowest in Islamic countries and highest in atheistic China. Bertolote and Fleischmann point out that in Muslim countries (e.g. Kuwait) where suicide is most strictly forbidden, the suicide rate is close to zero (0.1 per 100,000). The suicide rate is highest in atheist countries such as China, where it is 25.6 per 100,000. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If they were living under the atheistic regime of China, 450,000 of them would be killing themselves every year, or 45,000,000 per century. I would humbly suggest that anything that saves that many lives has got to be socially beneficial.vjtorley
July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Doveton, I note once again you, as a atheist, are completely missing the point that you have no basis in science from which to work; To get this whole 'transcendent thing' down, you know transcendent things like perception, reasoning, truth, information, consciousness, etc.. etc...,,, things that are essential for 'science' to even be possible, Let's break it down to its foundational brass tax. I hold that material processes cannot generate transcendent things. whereas, You, as a atheist, if you are consistent, hold that material processes can generate such transcendent things, or at least the illusion of such transcendent things. Thus, to resolve this conflict, I have a null hypothesis for you to falsify to prove to me that material processes can do such as you hold: The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010 Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.” http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8 ) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/ag Falsify that Doveton and I will gladly pay attention to your conjectures!! Deal???bornagain77
July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
BTW, Chris, I've started a thread at my new blog here: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/?p=17 related to your questions. I'm happy to address them here, but if you want to come over, at least we can keep things to a single manageable thread!Elizabeth Liddle
July 30, 2011
July
07
Jul
30
30
2011
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Thanks for this response too, Lizzie. I will also respond in full to this, later this weekend, hopefully. ;-)Chris Doyle
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
Hi Chris, sorry for the delayed response:
Afteroon Lizzie, Do you know what? I actually think we’ve made a lot of progress here. Darkness can be so illuminating! Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me you are now acknowledging that the problem I posed by the question “Why should a miserable atheist bother with life at all?” is one that you, as an atheist, “don’t have a solution” for. Is that right? I know that you’re quick to add “And I don’t think an afterlife provides one, either”… but this is bears an uncanny resemblance to your earlier admission about the failure of atheistic morality and my response to that is the same: “A rational atheist can logically free-ride: maintaining a public appearance of moral steadfastness while committing immoral acts whenever he desires (as long as he avoids detection) and your response is “Well, sure…” I think we should pause there for a moment, Lizzie, to let that important fact sink in rather than trying to gloss over it by changing the subject to theism.”
OK.
Because, if you are saying what you think I’m saying, then you are agreeing with me that the atheistic worldview – complete with its indifferent universe and inevitable oblivion – cannot provide any sort of motivation, hope, purpose or meaning to tragic, miserable people (of which, there are, and has been, plenty). If we now agree on that point, then that is not only progress but also the end of our discussion about atheistic meaning.
I’m sorry, Chris, but I’m not making the connection here. In the first place, I can’t even find where you are quoting me from, so I’m not sure what I said in the ellipses – can you link? And I’ve given you lots of examples of what someone with an atheistic worldview can do to help provide a miserable atheist with motiviation, hope, purpose or meaning. I mean you are not stupid, Chris, and nor am I, so clearly we are misunderstanding each other here – that’s why I asked you to answer the question from a theist perspective so I could try to understand the shape of the answer you are after (whether I can fill the shape or not). If a person is tragic and miserable, what might be able to do to give them hope and joy will, in part, depend on why they are tragic and miserable. And I’ve known tragic and miserable atheists - tragic because of a personal bereavement, and miserable because of fallout from that bereavement – who have indeed been helped – by other atheists – to recover motivation, hope and purpose. So I’m absolutely stuck! You’ve asked me a question, I’ve given you answers, but you seem to think that my answers are somehow not – I dunno – satisfactory? That they wouldn’t give you hope and purpose? Well, probably not, but then you asked me to help a miserable atheist, not a miserable Christian! Please help!
However, if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick and actually you think that the atheistic worldview can still give a miserable atheist (non-otter-related!) reasons for bothering with life at all then let’s hear it. And, yes, when it comes to extremely miserable atheists, I do also want to know what it is about the atheistic worldview that prevents them from committing suicide.
Well, I already provided quite a lot. But let me think up a new list of reasons why, from an atheist perspective, an atheist should bother with life at all: “Well, it’s the only one you’ve got, and you aren’t exactly getting your money’s worth right now, so why not go out and enjoy it! Join a samba band, get a rewarding job, love your wife, love your children, help out your neighbour, sign up for a dating service, figure out what in the world needs fixing the most, and go out and see what you can do to fix it, have a massage/single malt whisky/sausage and chips, train for a half marathon, take up darts, cycle to work, save the whales.... I’m serious, Chris – all those things are “reasons for bothering with life”. But my answer to your second question is more serious still – your question about suicide. I think you are right in a sense that atheists are more likely than theists to consider suicide, not because they are more miserable, but because they don’t see any good reason to suffer through a “natural” death when they can organise a peaceful one, give their relatives an opportunity to say goodbye, and leave when they are ready. Atheists have a huge advantage over many theists, in that they aren’t afraid of death, although they may be, like all of us, afraid of the process of dying. And not being afraid of death can be hugely liberating. I’ve heard lots of atheists say: we know that this life is the only life we have, and that our only immortality lies in the difference we make to the world, so what greater incentive could there be for trying to leave the world a better place, not a worse one” or words to that effect.
Now, returning to atheistic morality, look again at the block quote above. You may have just missed this point originally, but if you don’t wish to dispute the fact that a rational atheist can logically free-ride then it seems to me that you also “don’t have a solution” for that problem either. Is that right? If so, then that is also progress and also the end of our discussion about atheistic morality.
But I do dispute this, Chris, and did, at length, with my “gak” post. I think you may have missed my point! But let me try to put it more succinctly: I think the error here lies in the term “free-ride”. I presume you mean – can have all the pleasure while others bear the pain as the old song goes. But that presupposes that pleasure, for humans, can be had at the expense of others. For some, maybe, actually certainly. But for most of us, pleasure at the expense of others’ pain is seriously alloyed pleasure. So why seek it – “gak” – rather than the really good stuff? Why drink keg lager when you can have draft beer? Now, you may well ask (and did, but I answered, though you might have missed it :)): but what gives people the desire for draft beer? Well, partly for many it comes “naturally”. For most people it’s the result of nurture. That nurture is what we call (as I said) “bringing children up to know right from wrong”. Which is not, as I’m sure you would agree, simply a matter of giving them a couple of lists to memorise, rewarding them when they do stuff on one list and punishing them when they do stuff on the other. It’s encouraging them to use their native ability (and I say that advisedly) to see things from another’s point of view, and to anticipate the consequences of their own actions, not only from their own PoV, but from the other’s. To nurture the capacity for empathy that is our birthright.
Again, if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick and actually you think that the atheistic worldview can still give a selfish but rational atheist (non-what-if-we-all-did-gak-related!) reasons for NOT free-riding then let’s hear it.
Yes, and I hope I’ve made it clear above.
Remember: most crimes go unsolved (assuming they’ve even been reported in the first place). Many war criminals have been able to start a new, comfortable life. Breivik is facing 21 years in prison at most and during that time, he will not have to worry about food and shelter. He will have access to leisure and entertainment facilities and will receive sacks of fan mail. The Iron Curtain may have been lifted, but countless millions are in the grips of an Iron Fist be it from unjust leaders, poverty or natural disasters. IOW, you cannot deny, that people all over the world are getting away with murder (often literally) and that is because they are either escaping detection completely or because they are prepared to handle the increasingly weak punishment that we hand out to those who are detected.
But I haven’t argued, Chris, for “weak punishment”. In fact I argued quite strongly for a rigorous justice system (“gak-minimising system”) if you recall! And I’m not sure what “natural disasters” is doing in that list anyway. Who do you punish for a natural disaster? But just as important as a justice system, IMO, is a culture that nurtures and rewards anti-gak stuff, whether it’s in our child-rearing practices, schools, colleges, institutions etc, and a social justice system that seeks to minimise, and eradicate, where possible, poverty, and to respond to natural disasters as effectively and humanely as possible.
I agree, it was cheeky of me to throw in the comment about “the light of our Creator”. I couldn’t resist, the metaphor was too good! But, if you are agreeing with me on the two major points discussed above, then actually, you are at least agreeing that atheistic meaning and morality perishes in the darkest places.
No, I’m not, because I don’t. Sorry!
By all means, please correct me if I’m wrong: if my arguments are not water-tight, then I sincerely want to know why.
Well, not so much not water-tight, but that we are still passing like ships in the night. Hope this post has helped.
Ah, Nottingham. I have fond memories of the Park Plaza hotel when my partner and I stayed there 5 years ago! We went up to get a 4D scan of our first daughter (who, by the way, quite enjoyed it when I read “Pip and the Edge of Heaven” to her for the first time). I will be sure to look you up if I return (though we’ll be having a 4D scan closer to home for our 18 week baby no. 3!) In the meantime, if you ever find yourself in London with a couple of hours to burn, let me know and I’ll get the first round in! Cheers Lizzie Chris
Ah, how nice that you read Pip! It’s my son of course. Most of the conversations are near verbatim, although obviously cast in fictional format. I still stand by most of that tbh. In my idiosyncratic way. And 4D scans are awesome! Congratulations on your daughter!Elizabeth Liddle
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Fair enough, Chris :) But it's a long one, so will have to wait for a longer response slot :) Probably this evening.Elizabeth Liddle
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Bornagain77,
Doveton at 71 (the standup routine goes on) I see that you once again tried to reason with me to show me why “that it matters not one wit whether reasoning is trustworthy.”
Actually I merely pointed out that you were not responding to what I actually said. And you still aren't. Oh well...
Ironically how ‘unreasonable’ this all is is completely lost on you, which at least lets me know, through reasoning, that your reasoning is not trustworthy in this matter;
I hear an Alanis Morissette song coming on. Do you know what is really ironic about that song? Not one thing she mentions is actually an example of irony. Anywhoo...you might consider actually addressing what I wrote and then determining whether there's any irony.
you try to add a caveat to you statement here; “Here’s what I actually wrote: ‘If I have an explanation that fits the evidence better than any other explanation, it matters not one wit whether the perception or reasoning are trustworthy.’” But alas Doveton you are banking on the fact that reasoning and perception are trustworthy to such a point that any new evidence will appeal to my reasoning as to make any particular position you may hold ‘more reasonable’!
Incorrect. I'm banking on no such thing and I noted that myself. Once again, I recommend you actually address what I wrote as opposed to what you wish I'd written.
With such ‘unreasonable’ thinking as you display in the necessity for ‘trustworthy reasoning’, it is no wonder that there are no atheists are on the honor role of those who founded modern science;
Now this, on the other hand, is a fine example of irony, Bornagain. If you address what I actually wrote, you might actually realize why. :)Doveton
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
DMull: "Example: Thou shalt not kill. Even for food? Or plants? Or in self-defense?" The original Hebrew word is "ratsach" from the sixth Commandment, many Hebrews translate this as "murder," or to murder, or to kill in passion, revenge etc. But it is translated, I believe in most cases incorrectly, to mean simply "kill," which as you say is subject to interpretation.junkdnaforlife
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Doveton at 71 (the standup routine goes on) I see that you once again tried to reason with me to show me why “that it matters not one wit whether reasoning is trustworthy.” Ironically how 'unreasonable' this all is is completely lost on you, which at least lets me know, through reasoning, that your reasoning is not trustworthy in this matter; you try to add a caveat to you statement here; "Here’s what I actually wrote: 'If I have an explanation that fits the evidence better than any other explanation, it matters not one wit whether the perception or reasoning are trustworthy.'" But alas Doveton you are banking on the fact that reasoning and perception are trustworthy to such a point that any new evidence will appeal to my reasoning as to make any particular position you may hold 'more reasonable'! :) With such 'unreasonable' thinking as you display in the necessity for 'trustworthy reasoning', it is no wonder that there are no atheists are on the honor role of those who founded modern science; Little known by most people is the fact that almost every, if not every, major branch of modern science has been founded by a scientist who believed in Christ: Christianity and The Birth of Science - Michael Bumbulis, Ph.D Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity - Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe's materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin's assumptions, you don't have a case of "closet atheists." http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/ Christianity Gave Birth To Each Scientific Discipline - Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer - video http://vimeo.com/16523153 In this short video, Dr. Stephen Meyer notes that the early scientists were Christians whose faith motivated them to learn more about their Creator… Dr. Meyer on the Christian History of Science - video http://www.thetruthproject.org/about/culturefocus/A000000287.cfm A Short List Of The Christian Founders Of Modern Science http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm Founders of Modern Science Who Believe in GOD - Tihomir Dimitrov http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/18/18 The Origin of Science Excerpt: Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html Jerry Coyne on the Scientific Method and Religion - Michael Egnor - June 2011 Excerpt: The scientific method -- the empirical systematic theory-based study of nature -- has nothing to so with some religious inspirations -- Animism, Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Islam, and, well, atheism. The scientific method has everything to do with Christian (and Jewish) inspiration. Judeo-Christian culture is the only culture that has given rise to organized theoretical science. Many cultures (e.g. China) have produced excellent technology and engineering, but only Christian culture has given rise to a conceptual understanding of nature. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/jerry_coyne_on_the_scientific_047431.html Christianity Is a Science-Starter, Not a Science-Stopper By Nancy Pearcey http://www.pearceyreport.com/archives/2005/09/post_4.php The 'Person Of Christ' was, and is, necessary for science to start and persist! https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/she-said-it-nancey-pearceys-thoughtful-article-on-how-%E2%80%9Cchristianity-is-a-science-starter-not-a-science-stopper%E2%80%9D/#comment-385265bornagain77
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
I'll answer that from my non-Christian point of view after you respond to post 49 on this thread, Lizzie. Dmullenix: check out the link below if you want to learn more about the atheistic problem of free-riding: http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/07/catching-up.html?cid=6a00d8341c565553ef0133f27f1ca5970b#comment-6a00d8341c565553ef0133f27f1ca5970bChris Doyle
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
I second dmullenix's request, as I think it would clarify the issues. The question addressed to atheists seems to be: what incentive do you have to be good, and how do you know what being good consists of? I'd like to know what incentive Christians have to be good, and how they know what being good consists of. It's not a trick question - from the shape of the answer I hope to figure out what kind of answer you think atheists can't provide :) Thanks :)Elizabeth Liddle
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
DLH in 51: First, Idi Amin was a theist. Second, he was grossly anti-social and evolution has built us to be social characters. That organization is the biggest single factor, except for our intelligence, in the success of the human race. So what is your point?dmullenix
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
Chris Doyle at 50: So atheists live moral lives even though they don’t have to while if a theist leads a moral life it’s because he’s either out for God’s reward or afraid of God’s punishment? I don’t think that’s what you meant to say, but … Can I ask you to define “free ride”? I thought you meant borrowing religiously derived morality but now I’m not sure. Also, everybody – I’m seeing people talk about objective morality again. I’m looking for somebody to tell me what it is – in enough detail so I can live my life by it. I’m not looking for a bunch of Bible verses or platitudes because those are subject to too much interpretation. (Example: Thou shalt not kill. Even for food? Or plants? Or in self-defense?)dmullenix
July 29, 2011
July
07
Jul
29
29
2011
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
If I have an explanation that fits the evidence better than any other explanation, it matters not one wit whether the perception or reasoning are trustworthy.
Including the reasoning that says "this is evidence" and that this other bit over here "this is not evidence." Including the reasoning involved in developing the belief that the explanation fits the evidence better than any other explanation.
As I noted, reasoning does not have to be trustworthy to be useful, nevermind just plain old fun.
I suppose one could say the same thing about playing the fool.Mung
July 28, 2011
July
07
Jul
28
28
2011
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Bornagain77,
Doveton, you state on the one hand that it matters not one wit whether reasoning is trustworthy, then when asked why you are wasting your time trying to reason with us, you claim that you are not ‘scientifically’ reasoning and then give us ‘reasons’ for why you are not reasoning!!! :) I could not write a better stand up routine if I tried!!! :)
Ok...clearly you didn't understand what I wrote. Let's try this again... First, I did not state, "that it matters not one wit whether reasoning is trustworthy." Here's what I actually wrote: If I have an explanation that fits the evidence better than any other explanation, it matters not one wit whether the perception or reasoning are trustworthy. Note the preceding condition - an explanation that fits the evidence better than any other explanation - that gives that sentence context. That's the condition your references all note and it is because of this condition that their arguments are Stolen Concept fallacies (a form of circular argument). Thus taking the one part out of that full sentence removes the context - so your question then is out of context. So you then ask why I'm wasting my time reasoning with you all. First off, I don't feel like I'm wasting my time reasoning with you all, hence my "I'm not" response. As I noted, reasoning does not have to be trustworthy to be useful, nevermind just plain old fun. Second, since this site does not constitute "within science" as Dr. Gordon and I both established as conditions, whether I find reasoning in this setting trustworthy or not is not impinged by the view of reasoning's trustworthiness in a scientific setting. Third, the discussions I engage in here are not "explanations that fit evidence" within science, so again scientific views on reasoning in such situations do not apply here. Of course, the very fact that you don't trust my reasoning and I don't trust your reasoning pretty much proves my point. There is no way to prove the trustworthiness of reasoning or perception; the best you can do is provide arguments and hope that others find utility in them. Thus far I've not found any utility in your arguments.Doveton
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
EL: "we try to make them see that if everyone forgoes the gak stuff, everyone else, including them is better off," So this system is mostly about minimising discomfort to oneself via being nice to others (who may do the minimising if we're not nice to them). I think this is a basic level of social morality everyone possesses, both theists and atheists. However, this system does not work very effectively. I'm sure we all know examples of 'bad bosses' or bad colleagues or bad civil servants who treat others badly but are very congenial to their superiors or people who matter to them. If there is no feedback or feedback is unlikely (which is the usual case outside of the Brother's Grimm) the pragmatic, person will say that it costs me more to be nice to this 'idiot' colleague or subordinate than it's worth. In fact it may not even be possible to enlighten them. Others won't even say it. They won't even realise how they're hurting their subordinates. Meanwhile it more than pays off to be good to my boss and laugh at his stupid jokes and pretend to be eager when he talks about new projects for me to get started on (even though I have enough on my plate already). It pays off to keep my boss happy but it does not always pay off to keep my underlings or people of neutral status to me, happy. In fact as said, it may harm me by using my limited resources which could be used to be a sycophant to my superior or the guy who will give me a grant for my next project. I'm sure we've all come across such people. At times I've acted like this myself. I think as a Catholic theistic person and an educated person who seeks all forms of knowledge I want more. I want a system of morality which is as at least as good as my education. I want to do everything well. This system is a non-psychopath type of morality, but it's not good enough. Just as going to high school is not good enough to be a molecular biologist or an aerospace engineer. There is no finite number of papers or good books one can stop at reading before one says that ones' education is complete. The same goes for morality and Catholic morality is pretty intellectual stuff. Comparing Christian or Catholic morality to this just makes this look very amateurish, and makes me feel bad because I often operate at this level too. I don't want these things because I want to show off, but because I want to better myself and ultimately transfer some of these qualities to my children and grandchildren and possibly others. Let's look at this system employed in a Godless society, such as the post-Revolutionary USSR. Communist atheists such as Feliks Dzierzynski had to be good to their bosses, Stalin and Lenin to keep them happy but they could order the extermination or Siberian exile of their subordinates and countless other powerless plebs. They did this, knowing that these people were no danger to them. Communist atheist leaders such as Boleslaw Bierut sometimes fell out of favour with their bosses despite having their pictures all over schools and May 1 parades, when they stood up to them and ended up dead. Their well being was guaranteed by their bosses but not their subordinates and definitely not by the population out there. My mother, who was born in 1946, told me how as a child in the Eastern Bloc, a communist atheist functionary in the 50's once confiscated their family coal kitchen stove. She was one of 3 children, her father was an architecture student finishing off his studies and her mother a manager of a retail store. In full wintertime a local Communist decided that he would be nice and kind to this family of 3 young children (at a time when large families were promoted too by the atheist Communist government) to be without a source of heat and means of providing warm meals. Yes he did not find it necessary to be warm to this family but he must have been a loyal Communist hence made his superiors happy in his congeniality. Of course some people just can't help being nice. There are some people who have a pleasant temperament, who are always polite and good to everyone.JohnPen
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
It is almost as good as this Doveton; This following video humorously reveals the bankruptcy that atheists have in trying to ground beliefs within a materialistic worldview; John Cleese – The Scientists – humorous video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M-vnmejwXobornagain77
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Doveton, you state on the one hand that it matters not one wit whether reasoning is trustworthy, then when asked why you are wasting your time trying to reason with us, you claim that you are not 'scientifically' reasoning and then give us 'reasons' for why you are not reasoning!!! :) I could not write a better stand up routine if I tried!!! :)bornagain77
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Bornagain77,
Doveton,,, what a bunch of wishy washy hogwash!!!
You are welcome to believe such, but your claiming such isn't much of a rebuttal.
for instance; ‘it matters not one wit whether the perception or reasoning are trustworthy.’ then why in blue blazes are you wasting all your time trying to reason with us???
A) I'm not. B) This site does not constitute "within science", a condition your reference, Dr. Gordon, notes. C) The discussions I engage in hereon do not constitute "explanations that fit the evidence" within science, the context I noted surrounding the words of mine you are questioning. D) Perceptions and reasoning, do not have to be trustworthy for scientific explanations to be useful.Doveton
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
for instance; 'it matters not one wit whether the perception or reasoning are trustworthy.' then why in blue blazes are you wasting all your time trying to reason with us???bornagain77
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
Doveton,,, what a bunch of wishy washy hogwash!!!bornagain77
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
Bornagain,
Daveton, it gets far worse for you!!! You cannot even justify doing science itself within your atheistic worldview!!!
Oh...joy...the presuppostional apologetics of Plantinga, Bahnsen, Craig. So, right off the bat we start with a stolen concept fallacy by way of a strawman. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#stolen In other words, relying on some supposed truth of evolution (even though Carter, Plantinga, Craig, et al all mischaracterize evolutionary theory) to falsify the theory invalidates the argument on circularity. But let's deal directly with the argument these folks all voice (paraphrasing the summation provided by Dr Gordon) - that materialism (e.g., science) offers no guarantee that the perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place. Guess what? That's quite true and all real scientists acknowledge this. Heck, we downright embrace that fact. Why? Because science isn't about relying upon, nevermind proving, the trustworthiness of perceptions or reason. Science is pretty much only concerned with utility. If I have an explanation that fits the evidence better than any other explanation, it matters not one wit whether the perception or reasoning are trustworthy. The only thing I trust is whether an explanation fits consistently, repeatably, and predictably with other folk's perceptions and reasoning. If we are all wrong, that's fine since none of us with no it and our predictions about the world around us will still allow us to accomplish activities. You can have the apologetics' circular argument if you want but I certainly don't need it or accept it.Doveton
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Doveton, though there are many, just to focus on your main weak point; ‘Evil is anything that promotes the distress and/or destruction of individuals and society.’ The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris “Flourishing’ moral argument– William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE ============ Stephen Meyer – Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M
These arguments are so weak and thoughtless... The tired old ought - is claim. Harris' slight of hand is not very deft. Here's an example where he tries to slip morality into his functional definition:
Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures… If we’re more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it’s because we think they are exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. The crucial thing to notice here is that this is a factual claim.
Umm...no Mr. Harris. Insects, trees, and stones may well experience some lesser range of potential happiness and suffering, but so what? Our acknowledgement of organisms experiencing greater or lesser ranges of happiness or suffering doesn't imply anything about what we should feel or how we should behave; there's nothing about morality tied in there. As for Meyer's argument, it's just slant on TAG, which is easily rearranged into morality presupposes the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.noble-minded.org/search_for_god.html Sorry Bornagain, but those arguments just don't hold any water.Doveton
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Daveton, it gets far worse for you!!! You cannot even justify doing science itself within your atheistic worldview!!! Should You Trust the Monkey Mind? - Joe Carter Excerpt: Evolutionary naturalism assumes that our noetic equipment developed as it did because it had some survival value or reproductive advantage. Unguided evolution does not select for belief except insofar as the belief improves the chances of survival. The truth of a belief is irrelevant, as long as it produces an evolutionary advantage. This equipment could have developed at least four different kinds of belief that are compatible with evolutionary naturalism, none of which necessarily produce true and trustworthy cognitive faculties. http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/09/should-you-trust-the-monkey-mind What is the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? ('inconsistent identity' of cause leads to failure of absolute truth claims for materialists) (Alvin Plantinga) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yNg4MJgTFw Can atheists trust their own minds? - William Lane Craig On Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin - Letter To William Graham - July 3, 1881 THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html This following site is a easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed 'Presuppositional apologetics'. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic, mathematics, science and morality cannot be accounted for unless we believe in a God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place. Proof That God Exists - easy to use interactive website http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/index.php Nuclear Strength Apologetics – Presuppositional Apologetics – video http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/nuclear-strength-apologetics/nuclear-strength-apologetics John Lennox - Science Is Impossible Without God - Quotes - video remix http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/ Materialism simply dissolves into absurdity when pushed to extremes and certainly offers no guarantee to us for believing our perceptions and reasoning within science are trustworthy in the first place: Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/bornagain77
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
Doveton, though there are many, just to focus on your main weak point; 'Evil is anything that promotes the distress and/or destruction of individuals and society.' The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris "Flourishing' moral argument– William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE ============ Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_Mbornagain77
July 27, 2011
July
07
Jul
27
27
2011
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply